[CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1: EXECUTIVE ATTY.

TONY LA VINA DLSUCOLB72019]

LACSON-MAGALLANES V. PAO
(G.R. No. L-27811, November 17, 1967)
DOCTRINE:

The President's duty to execute the law is of constitutional origin. So, too, is his control
of all executive departments. Thus it is, that department heads are men of his
confidence. His is the power to appoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them
at pleasure. Naturally, he controls and directs their acts. Implicit then is his authority to
go over, confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries. In
this context, it may not be said that the President cannot rule on the correctness of a
decision of a department secretary.

The Office of the Executive Secretary is an auxiliary unit which assists the President.
The rule which has thus gained recognition is that "under our constitutional setup the
Executive Secretary who acts for and in behalf and by authority of the President has an
undisputed jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or even reverse any order" that the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, including the Director of Lands, may issue.

EMERGENCY RECIT:
Magallanes was permitted to use and occupy a land used for pasture in Davao. The said land
was a forest zone which was later declared as an agricultural zone. Magallanes then ceded his
rights to LMC of which he is a co-owner. Pao was a farmer who asserted his claim over the
same piece of land. The Director of Lands denied Paos request. The Secretary of Agriculture
likewise denied his petition hence it was elevated to the Office of the President. Exec Sec Pajo
ruled in favor of Pao. LMC averred that the earlier decision of the Secretary is already
conclusive hence beyond appeal. He also averred that the decision of the Executive Secretary is
an undue delegation of power. The Constitution, LMC asserts, does not contain any provision
whereby the presidential power of control may be delegated to the Executive Secretary. It is
argued that it is the constitutional duty of the President to act personally upon the matter.
FACTS:

Jose Magallanes was permitted to use and occupy a land used for pasture in Davao.
The said land was a forest zone which was later declared as an agricultural zone.
Magallanes then ceded his rights to Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. (LMC) of which he is

a co-owner.

Jose Pao was a farmer who asserted his claim over the same piece of land. The
Director of Lands denied Paos request. The Secretary of Agriculture likewise denied
his petition hence it was elevated to the Office of the President.

Executive Secretary Juan Pajo ruled in favor of Pao. LMC averred that the earlier
decision of the Secretary of Agriculture is already conclusive hence beyond appeal. He
also averred that the decision of the Executive Secretary is an undue delegation of
power. The Constitution, LMC asserts, does not contain any provision whereby the
presidential power of control may be delegated to the Executive Secretary. It is argued
that it is the constitutional duty of the President to act personally upon the matter.

ISSUE:
1.

WON the power of control may be delegated to the Executive Secretary. YES

HELD/RATIO
1. YES. It is true that as a rule, the President must exercise his constitutional powers in
person. However, the president may delegate certain powers to the Executive
Secretary at his discretion. The president may delegate powers which are not required
by the Constitution for him to perform personally. The reason for this allowance is the
fact that the resident is not expected to perform in person all the multifarious executive
and administrative functions. The office of the Executive Secretary is an auxiliary unit
which assists the President. The rule which has thus gained recognition is that under
our constitutional setup the Executive Secretary who acts for and in behalf and by
authority of the President has an undisputed jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or even
reverse any order that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, including
the Director of Lands, may issue.
The act of the Executive Secretary, acting as the alter ego of the President, shall
remain valid until reversed, disapproved, or reprobated by the President. In this case,
no reprobation was made hence the decision granting the land to Pao cannot be
reversed.